John Kelly was right: The Civil War was all about compromise

According to Whitehouse Chief of Staff Kelly it was all about compromise or lack of it and gosh.... if you look at it from an angle... an
angle... you gotta also..... ya know? You gotta squint your eyes a little... then you'll see he's right? Right? Slavery wasn't the main
cause! We gotta look at compromise! This lovely
WaPo article explains. Unfortunately Kelly's angle is one on the side of the apologists. This
WaPo article, as the author admits, would not be on the same page.

You see, Kelly is following the age ol' tradition of trying not to offend snowflake conservatives over the topic of the civil war. History is
way too inconvenient ya know? And like many others before him, the Rockwells, the Alex Joneses, you name it, there's been this attempt in trying to
use any other issue, other than slavery, to explain the prevailing issue behind the war. Gosh we don't want to offend people.

But back to compromise. How about that? Compromise? Or lack of it from the Federal Government at the time. The truth is, there was no
compromise. The slave states of the South refused any compromise on the matter of slavery. The only side that seemed to compromise at
all on major issues was the slave free north.

No compromise on the matter of slavery.

The States of the Confederate South complained about how the Free States of the North refused to return escaped Slaves. There was not compromise on
this issue. There was no respect for the laws of those Northern Free States. No respect for their laws. Those States of the Confederacy got
their way thanks to the fugitive Slave Act of 1850

The elite Slaveholders of the Confederacy continued to refuse compromise over the welfare and rights of slaves and got their way again with the
Dredd Scott ruling of 1858. Recognizing blacks were not full
persons. There was no compromise on this issue.

Lincoln, who took to off office, even made an offer from the Federal government,
to buy the slaves from
the South in order to end tensions and any further conflict. This idea, this compromise was tossed about for years, even before
the war, and was dismissed by the States of the Confederacy and the slaveholder elite.

Even when Lincoln and much of the Republican party relented on the issue of slavery and
promised to protect the institution in order to
preserve the Union, did the the States of the Confederacy move on for the good of the country as a whole? Oh no. Secession. No discussion, just
packing our bags!

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic
tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own
constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received
as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within
her limits

or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the
subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security,

South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia, The Vice President of the Confederacy, all right there. No compromise on the matter of slavery.
Just pack your toys up and leave. That's exactly what they did. www.knowlouisiana.org...avalon.law.yale.edu...

Oh they got their way. The states of the Confederacy got their way at every turn leading up to the civil war.

There was NO compromising.

Oh let's not forget the powers held by the dixiecrat south of the 1850s just before Confederate secession!

Lack of compromise caused the Civil War you say?? No.... no. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement of those on the side of the
Confederacy caused the war and that's it. This attitude continued through the South, post Civil war, down through the generations. There was no
"compromising" with the Confederacy back then and there's no compromising with the Trump Administration and their lackies today. History is
evidence of this.

It was about control of the money,the English wanted the US as a colony of theirs,and the money Rothchilds lent,was given as mineral rights to US
land,slavery and other issues like it is now,wave these flags in front of the truth

Lack of compromise caused the Civil War you say?? No.... no. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement of those on the side of the
Confederacy caused the war and that's it. This attitude continued through the South, post Civil war, down through the generations. There was no
"compromising" with the Confederacy back then and there's no compromising with the Trump Administration and their lackies today. History is
evidence of this.

So basically Trump and his "lackies" are present day confederates? I'm honestly kind of confused here. It is a well put together thread; I love
learning new things about the civil war, but why the whole tirade about the Trump administration and synonymizing it with half a country breaking
ties?

This whole thing reads....desperate. If you were going for an analogy of Trump aiding in the division of America or something it'd seem more coherent.
However this just looks like a "i hate Trump and his buddies cuz... well I hate them!" kind of thing.

Your talking to a deaf audience, history repeated itself with the Bankers bailout in 2008. It's easier to remain blind and look at the periphery when
the truth is too obvious but questions why we even get up to go to work to enrich an un-elected
elite that write the laws with our money furthering our enslavement.

When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund
Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the
white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth
and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded.

The United States should have split instead of fighting the civil war. The US still needs to split as the philosophical differences between the
middle of the country and the coasts are simply to large to overcome.

Yeah, Kelly is right, that war could have been avoided if not for the Stubborn people running things at the time. Most people think it was all about
slavery, it was not. It was about control, a power struggle. Slavery getting made illegal was a good thing but for some who worked for good slave
owners it was actually worse. Not all slave owners were evil. Some treated their slaves well and even set them up with land and bought some of their
produce when they harvested.

Oh yeah, the thing is we stole that land from the Indians, the slaves would not have had to owned the land if we hadn't done that.

I can't figure out why anyone would slam Kelly for a true statement like that.

Doesn't matter how much you pick and prod the causes of the civil war it was literally all about slavery. The declaration of secession was riddled
with causes that ultimately came down to ownership of slaves. Which I guess yes is a control of power, but any nation wants that over their laws.

The idea of a southern tropical confederacy was proposed nearly 100 years before the war started, it was a bubbling pot just waiting to boil.
Which is turn with poor communication, and a pretty much completely different culture by 1860 had zero chance of talking compromises with the
progressive north.
The south were stubburn, and unwilling to change. They'd rather divide the nation than work with it. All to up hold their institution of slavery, a
dying industry.

Calling Trump and his admin like the confederate government is a little far stretch, but op is right, Trump doesn't come to compromises, he just does
things without even looking at it from all angles. He makes selfish decisions. He's not a leader.

Good thread.
The south's selfishness with compromise dates all the way back to the founding of the country actually. The founding fathers had to promise the slave
states the 3/5th compromise just so they'd enter the union. From there they just kept demanding and demanding more and more concessions for slavery
all while hinting they'd leave the union if the North didn't come to the table.

Secession was not the Civil War, it simply came after it.
Were the causes of secession the causes of the war?
No, the war was initiated by Lincoln, the South didn't attack the North.

Civil War didn't have to happen but Lincoln refused to abandon Federal forts in Southern States.
Fort Sumter didn't have to happen, it was on South Carolina territory and rightfully their possession.

Many Northerners agreed with the South, especially in places like Ohio and Maryland.
Lincoln was the cause of the Civil War, not slavery which was the cause of secession.
Nobody forced Lincoln to invade the South, that was his intention and design.
If we want to credit him with freeing the slaves we also need to lay the blame for 600,000 dead Americans at his feet too.

Looks to me that the confederates cause for war was slavery and they attacked first.

And history shows that compromises were set in place for the North and South to come to an agreement, just as OP has brought to the table, but the
south weren't having it because of their barbaric out dated ideology of slavery in a functioning society.

And history shows that compromises were set in place for the North and South to come to an agreement, just as OP has brought to the table, but the
south weren't having it because of their barbaric out dated ideology of slavery in a functioning society.

This question is to Southern Guardian also.

So what you are saying is that there were attempted compromises, but the fact that the south wouldnt compromise made the war necessary?

And history shows that compromises were set in place for the North and South to come to an agreement, just as OP has brought to the table, but the
south weren't having it because of their barbaric out dated ideology of slavery in a functioning society.

This question is to Southern Guardian also.

So what you are saying is that there were attempted compromises, but the fact that the south wouldnt compromise made the war necessary?

There was a declaration of secession based off up holding the institution of slavery.
Lincoln didn't turn a blind eye and just said, o well. He attempted to keep the union in tact, and he meant it through what ever means necessary. The
south just moved things along a little quicker with Fort Sumter, and fortified that they weren't going to stop when it became more of a siege rather
than just a move of aggression.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.